With the ever-increasing reliance upon electronic data, businesses are becoming more and more reliant upon those networks responsible for distributing that data. Unfortunately, the rapid growth in the amount of data consumed by businesses has outpaced the development and growth of certain necessary network infrastructure components. One reason that the development and growth of the network infrastructure has lagged behind centers on the present difficulty in expanding, configuring, and reconfiguring existing networks. Even the most routine network expansions and reconfigurations, for example, require significant, highly technical, manual intervention by trained network administrators. Unfortunately, these highly trained network administrators are in extremely short supply. Thus, many needed network expansions and reconfigurations are delayed or even completely avoided because of the inability to find the needed administrators to perform the required laborious, technical tasks.
The present difficulty in configuring and reconfiguring networks is best illustrated by an example directed toward installing a single new router on an existing network. To install a new router (such as router 100 or 105 in FIG. 1), an administrator 110 first would need to choose a particular router with the best attributes for the network. The basic configuration of the new router generally will be defined by its manufacturer and its model. Although it would seem that the router should be chosen based upon its attributes, administrators 110 often choose a router based upon the identity of its manufacturer and the administrators' ability to configure devices from that manufacturer. Administrators 110, for example, may only know how to configure and operate devices manufactured by Cisco Systems, Inc. and may overlook equal or even superior devices from other manufacturers merely because they cannot or have not been trained to configure them.
After the administrator 110 has chosen the desired router (router 105, for example), the administrator 110 generally will order the router 105 from the manufacturer and have it shipped, not necessarily to the installation site, but rather to the administrator's site where a basic configuration can be installed. The administrator 110 then ships the router 105 to the installation site where it can be physically installed. After the router 105 has been physically installed, the administrator 110 typically is manually notified, e.g., by telephone, that the router 105 is connected to the network. The administrator must then create a set of device-specific commands required to fully configure the router 105 and transfer those commands to the router's memory 115. After the administrator 110 verifies that the device-specific commands were installed correctly, the router 105 can be brought online.
Obviously, the steps required for an administrator to configure a single router are quite cumbersome and require significant technical skill. The problem, however, is even more severe when the administrator desires to simultaneously configure or reconfigure several network devices. First, the administrator, for example, would need to manually identify the network devices that need to be configured or reconfigured. For example, if the administrator desired to turn up service between two points, the administrator would need to identify the routers along the path between the two points. The administrator would then need to verify that the policies and rules established for the network permit the contemplated reconfiguration for those devices. Assuming that the reconfiguration is within the network's policies and rules, the administrator would need to create the device-specific code required to reconfigure each of the identified devices. In many instances, the same device-specific code cannot be used on all of the devices. For example, the device-specific commands required to reconfigure a Cisco™ router differ significantly from the device-specific commands required to reconfigure a Juniper™ router. Thus, if the identified network devices include both Cisco™ and Juniper™ routers, the administrator would be required to create different versions of the device-specific commands, thereby significantly increasing the chance for error in the reconfiguration process.
Once the device-specific commands have been created for each of the identified network devices, the commands must be manually transmitted to each device. That is, a connection, e.g., a telnet connection, must be established to each device and the particular commands transferred thereto. After each device has received its commands, the network administrator must manually reconnect to each device and verify that the device received the proper commands and that it is operating properly.
Although some tools have been developed to help administrators perform certain ones of the laborious tasks of network management, these tools are extremely limited in their application. For example, CiscoWorks™ is a group of unrelated tools that can aid administrators in some enterprise level tasks. CiscoWorks™ and similar tools provide singularly focused, unrelated tools to perform activities such as quality of service (QOS) provisioning and network policy management. These tools do not provide a way to interrelate the various happenings in a network. In essence, these present network tools lack a holistic approach to network administration.
Moreover, tools like CiscoWorks™ are generally dedicated to the management of one type of network device, e.g., router or optical device, and one brand of network device. For example, CiscoWorks™ does not help an administrator configure a Juniper™ router, and it does not help an administrator configure optical devices. Thus, if the network has both Cisco™ and Juniper™ devices, multiple unrelated tools must be utilized to perform basic network management tasks. Unfortunately, because these multiple unrelated tools are so difficult to manage, network administrators are prone to select routers based upon manufacturer identity rather than upon device features.
In addition to several other drawbacks, these singularly focused network tools result in substandard fault detection and recovery. For example, in present systems, once a configuration is changed, there is no easy way to “back out” of that configuration if a problem arises. Presently, if a new configuration for a target device fails, the network administrator would be forced to recreate the device-specific commands of the target device's previous configuration, manually connect to the device and then transmit the recreated device-specific commands to the device. As can be appreciated, this process can be extremely time consuming and error prone.
Another drawback to existing network technology centers on the multitude of different interfaces that a network administrator must navigate to configure various network devices. Presently, each network device manufacturer uses its own distinct interface for communicating with its network devices. For example, a network administrator would use a first interface for communicating with a Ciena Corporation (hereinafter “Ciena”) optical device and a second interface for communicating with a Nortel™ optical device. Because, these interfaces may have very little in common, the network administrator would be required to spend a great deal of time learning both interfaces.
The burden on a network administrator increases dramatically when he needs to communicate with different types of devices manufactured by different companies. In many networks, an administrator could be required to communicate with routers, optical devices, and storage devices—all manufactured by different companies. Thus, a network administrator faces the daunting task of learning and using the distinct interfaces created by each of these manufacturers.
To date, each network device manufacture unfortunately has focused on building its own interface and making its own product easier to use. In other words, network device manufactures have focused on developing their own software platforms to operate their own network devices. Device manufactures, as would be expected, have not focused on an integrated software platform that will operate devices of different types and/or from different manufactures. There is no motivation for a company like Nortel™ to aid a network administrator in configuring a device from its competitor, Ciena.
The lack of an integrated software platform for communicating with, operating and/or configuring various network devices has led to the slowed expansion of existing networks. Because network administrators shy away from purchasing network devices that require them to undergo additional training, the lack of such an integrated software platform prevents new device manufactures from entering the market. Moreover, lack of such an integrated software platform prevents new network providers from entering the market because they cannot find trained personnel that can operate the distinct interfaces developed by the various network device manufactures. Accordingly, an integrated network software platform is needed. In particular, a system and method are needed for communicating with network devices without regard to the device type and/or manufacturer.